2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

By Joshua A. Beckman. Circulation, 2022

758 citations recorded by the source corpus.

AIM: The “2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease” provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease. TOP 10 TAKE-HOME MESSAGES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF AORTIC DISEASE 1. Because outcomes for patients with aortic disease are enhanced at programs with higher volumes, experienced practitioners, and extensive management capabilities, Multidisciplinary Aortic Team care is considered in determining the appropriate timing of intervention. 2. Shared decision-making involving the patient and a multidisciplinary team is highly encouraged to determine the optimal medical, endovascular, and open surgical therapies. In patients with aortic disease who are contemplating pregnancy or who are pregnant, shared decision-making is especially important when considering the cardiovascular risks of pregnancy, the diameter thresholds for prophylactic aortic surgery, and the mode of delivery. 3. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and echocardiographic imaging of patients with aortic disease should follow recommended approaches for image acquisition, measurement and reporting of relevant aortic dimensions, and the frequency of surveillance before and after intervention. 4. At centers with Multidisciplinary Aortic Teams and experienced surgeons, the threshold for surgical intervention for sporadic aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms has been lowered from 5.5 cm to 5.0 cm in selected patients, and even lower in specific scenarios among patients with heritable thoracic aortic aneurysms. 5. In patients who are significantly smaller or taller than average, surgical thresholds may incorporate indexing of the aortic root or ascending aortic diameter to either patient body surface area or height, or aortic cross-sectional area to patient height. 6. Rapid aortic root growth or ascending aortic aneurysm growth, an indication for intervention, is defined as ≥0.5 cm in 1 year or ≥0.3 cm per year in 2 consecutive years for those with sporadic aneurysms and ≥0.3 cm in 1 year for those with heritable thoracic aortic disease or bicuspid aortic valve. 7. In patients undergoing aortic root replacement surgery, valve-sparing aortic root replacement is reasonable if the valve is suitable for repair and when performed by experienced surgeons in a Multidisciplinary Aortic Team. 8. Patients with acute type A aortic dissection, if clinically stable, should be considered for transfer to a high-volume aortic center to improve survival. The operative repair of type A aortic dissection should entail at least an open distal anastomosis rather than just a simple supracoronary interposition graft. 9. There is an increasing role for thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection. Clinical trials of repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with endografts are reporting results that suggest endovascular repair is an option for patients with suitable anatomy. 10. In patients with aneurysms of the aortic root or ascending aorta, or those with aortic dissection, screening of first-degree relatives with aortic imaging is recommended. PREAMBLE Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, which are based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a foundation for the delivery of quality cardiovascular care. The ACC and AHA sponsor the development and publication of clinical practice guidelines without commercial support, and members volunteer their time to the writing and review efforts. Guidelines are official policy of the ACC and AHA. For some guidelines, the ACC and AHA collaborate with other organizations. Intended Use Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations applicable to patients with or at risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The focus is on medical practice in the United States, but these guidelines are relevant to patients throughout the world. Although guidelines may be used to inform regulatory or payer decisions, the intent is to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Guidelines are intended to define practices meeting the needs of patients in most, but not all, circumstances and should not replace clinical judgment. Clinical Implementation Management, in accordance with guideline recommendations, is effective only when followed by both practitioners and patients. Adherence to recommendations can be enhanced by shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, with patient engagement in selecting interventions on the basis of individual values, preferences, and associated conditions and comorbidities. Methodology and Modernization The AHA/ACC Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines (Joint Committee) continuously reviews, updates, and modifies guideline methodology on the basis of published standards from organizations, including the Institute of Medicine,1,2 and on the basis of internal reevaluation. Similarly, presentation and delivery of guidelines are reevaluated and modified in response to evolving technologies and other factors to optimally facilitate dissemination of information to health care professionals at the point of care. Numerous modifications to the guidelines have been implemented to make them shorter and enhance “user friendliness.” Guidelines are written and presented in a modular, “knowledge chunk” format, in which each chunk includes a table of recommendations, a brief synopsis, recommendation-specific supportive text and, when appropriate, flow diagrams or additional tables. Hyperlinked references are provided for each modular knowledge chunk to facilitate quick access and review. In recognition of the importance of cost–value considerations, in certain guidelines, when appropriate and feasible, an analysis of value for a drug, device, or intervention may be performed in accordance with the ACC/AHA methodology.3 To ensure that guideline recommendations remain current, new data will be reviewed on an ongoing basis by the writing committee and staff. Going forward, targeted sections/knowledge chunks will be revised dynamically after publication and timely peer review of potentially practice-changing science. The previous designations of “full revision” and “focused update” will be phased out. For additional information and policies on guideline development, readers may consult the ACC/AHA guideline methodology manual4 and other methodology articles.5–7 Selection of Writing Committee Members The Joint Committee strives to ensure that the guideline writing committee contains requisite content expertise and is representative of the broader cardiovascular community by selection of experts across a spectrum of backgrounds, representing different geographic regions, sexes, races, ethnicities, intellectual perspectives/biases, and clinical practice settings. Organizations and professional societies with related interests and expertise are invited to participate as partners or collaborators. Relationships With Industry and Other Entities The ACC and AHA have rigorous policies and methods to ensure that documents are developed without bias or improper influence. The complete policy on relationships with industry and other entities (RWI) can be found online. Appendix 1 of the guideline lists writing committee members’ relevant RWI. For the purposes of full transparency, their comprehensive disclosure information is available in a Supplemental Appendix. Comprehensive disclosure information for the Joint Committee is also available online. Evidence Review and Evidence Review Committees In developing recommendations, the writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies that are based on all available data.4,5 Literature searches focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also include registries, nonrandomized comparative and descriptive studies, case series, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and expert opinion. Only key references are cited. An independent evidence review committee is commissioned when there are ≥1 question(s) deemed of utmost clinical importance and merit formal systematic review to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from a drug, device, or treatment strategy, and to what degree. Criteria for commissioning an evidence review committee and formal systematic review include absence of a current authoritative systematic review, feasi

Subfields: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf87604848de5965b66bd892c2fef79d2a38ad2a